The Internet Needs Laws

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Today, sites across the Internet are going on strike to protest SOPA and PIPA. Their aim is certainly noble, and it may stop these particular bills, but it's a delaying action at best; there is too much money being lost by people and companies for them not to keep fighting for some form of substantial copyright protection.

The Internet community as a whole seems to regard this as anathema, but WHY? Most people support some form of protection to prevent artists from being pirated into oblivion, and we have other laws in place restricting access to certain content (child pornography is the most obvious). So why do people insist that the Internet should be a lawless place, where pirates can steal freely with the 'promise' that if they like some content, they'll go back and pay for it later, but where government-sponsored (SOPA and PIPA) or company-sponsored (DRM) restrictions are the worst possible creations?

I ask you, Escapists: Should the Internet have laws and some form of control? How should people and companies be allowed to protect their intellectual property?

EDIT: Wow, lot of responses. Lets see if I can take care of a few, and put a couple of the most common ones up here for everyone to see.

First things first, I am not a troll, a corporate shill or someone doing this to get a built-up thread. Everyone seems to agree that SOPA/PIPA is bad, harmful to small businesses and people, gives WAY too much power to companies and is ineffective against piracy (which I completely agree with), but my original point still stands: until corporations feel they have adequate protection, they will keep proposing laws like this and DMCA, and enacting policies like DRM, until they feel safe (which, as some people have pointed out, is not likely to happen).

Frankly, I haven't heard ANYBODY in the anti-SOPA movement bring up any alternatives to the issue. And, really, until there is a viable alternative path, legislation is the go-to, quick-and-dirty 'solution' to the problem that will be presented.

http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=e881b316-5218-4bcd-80a1-9112347fe2f4

I only heard of this recently. I agree to many people are just bashing at SOPA and it's making everyone look like fear mongers, supporting bills like this would be far more effective then this how dare you touch my precious internet attitude that's going around.

The biggest problem with making laws to govern the internet is that they need a way to effect things over seas as it's all to easy to just move a server out of the States and make it untouchable.

Lord Jeff gets +5 internets. He found a more palatable law than SOPA/PIPA which is still trying to help both sides. And yet, there is the inherent problem that laws are going to be an uneven patchwork while nation-states enact their own laws because there is no overriding power that can dictate standards (for instance, an international body like Interpol which enforces laws made by the international community at the UN)

It seems like this is going to be a trend now....

So why do people insist that the Internet should be a lawless place, where pirates can steal freely with the 'promise' that if they like some content, they'll go back and pay for it later,

Hate to interrupt you mid-sentence, but there's multiple issues at hand. Who, exactly, is insisting this? It sounds like a strawman argument.

but where government-sponsored (SOPA and PIPA) or company-sponsored (DRM) restrictions are the worst possible creations?

SOPA and PIPA are just about the worst possible way to handle things. Laws already exist and enforcement is possible. This kind of regulation is poorly conceived and worthless.

I ask you, Escapists: Should the Internet have laws and some form of control?

It already does.

Point 1 (My 'Straw Man Argument'): I draw your attention to the following post. It's not perfect, but it comes directly from this thread and it illustrates the basic point of many pro-pirating threads I have seen on this website and elsewhere, namely, that it is OK to pirate because you might become a fan and spend money on them later. I've always believed that wrong actions are wrong, regardless of justification, and that the possibility of future re-compensation does not make the act right. (Note: Before people bring it up, yes I know Notch supports this view, but not everyone agrees with him)

Much of the piracy problem can be solved by simply offering real prices. The majority of Americans can't afford more than a couple of games and a few albums per year. Were they able to afford more, they would pay for more, but holding them to maybe 50 new songs a year...it's unrealistic. They aren't lost sales, because they would have never gotten the money to begin with.

On the other hand, many new artists become known because of file-sharing. My friend pirated Enter Shikari's first two albums, and it's because of him that I became a fan and saw them live. Without that exposure, Enter Shikari would have lost some $60+ from me alone (ticket + shirt, subtracting some presumed costs).

Points 2 and 3 (SOPA/PIPA is worthless, legislation already exists): Indeed, SOPA/PIPA is the wrong way to go about it, but people are looking for ways to fight the underlying cause. Saying that legislation already exists, so the problem is fixed, is like the story of the boy who plugged a leak in a dike by sticking his finger in it (note: for the filthy-minded internet: Dike as in levee); it may be of some use, but it doesn't fix the problem, and eventually he's gonna get tired and the water will come pouring in.


AND FINALLY A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE:
Yes, it is unlikely that there will ever be a permanent solution to piracy, or at least one that pleases both content-creators and content-users. But this is an argument that we CANNOT use as the basis for our defense, because corporations like the RIAA and MPAA WILL NOT accept it, and they WILL continue to fight for their own interests at any cost (which is kinda the point of corporations). If we do not come up with new, creative and EFFECTIVE ways to fight piracy, and KEEP coming up with them, the people who want to censor the internet will gain traction. This is a social issue like poverty and war, and like those we must continually fight the battle for our principles.

 

[Aidinthel]

The internet already has laws. In fact, DMCA is already being abused by corporations. I don't think more legislation is the answer here.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Laws entail a court system. These legislations will give the power to the companies themselves, rather than the judicial system, to decide if something is allowed or not.


Companies are in it for the profit, not for justice, they will abuse this power to make more money and in doing so censor everything.

 

[Ickorus]

I personally agree, the internet shouldn't be lawless but at the same time no national government (or the businesses pulling the puppet strings) should be allowed place restrictions on it that would impact the rest of the world.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

The internet has laws. The laws are also enforced.

I dont see what the hell you are on about.

The thing is, the laws as they are do not work, as is evidenced by the rampant and easy piracy of media. This leads to companies trying to protect their property by creating increasingly draconian measures to protect them. I'm not an expert in copyright law or other laws that govern media and free speech, so I want to know if anyone out there knows a better way to structure the laws of the internet rather than the "our way or no way" version proposed in SOPA and PIPA.

Laws entail a court system. These legislations will give the power to the companies themselves, rather than the judicial system, to decide if something is allowed or not.


Companies are in it for the profit, not for justice, they will abuse this power to make more money and in doing so censor everything.

So do you think we should make a deciding body, perhaps an organ of the UN charged with finding and maintaining a balance with copyright and free speech?

 

[FalloutJack]

The Internet Needs Laws

The internet needs a competent solution that people are willing to accept and that no hacker will be inclined to thwart the moment the hammer goes down. A wrong-angle answer to the problem only makes it worse. Bottom line.

 

[seraphy]

DMCA is abused by corporations all the time already. Just look at youtube. Videos that are clearly fair use are pulled down from there all the time for no good reason. These corporations are very rarely, if ever punished for their platant abuse of power.

And you want to give corporations more laws to abuse. No thanks.

 

[Esotera]

The internet has laws. The laws are also enforced.

I dont see what the hell you are on about.

The thing is, the laws as they are do not work, as is evidenced by the rampant and easy piracy of media. This leads to companies trying to protect their property by creating increasingly draconian measures to protect them. I'm not an expert in copyright law or other laws that govern media and free speech, so I want to know if anyone out there knows a better way to structure the laws of the internet rather than the "our way or no way" version proposed in SOPA and PIPA.

Laws entail a court system. These legislations will give the power to the companies themselves, rather than the judicial system, to decide if something is allowed or not.


Companies are in it for the profit, not for justice, they will abuse this power to make more money and in doing so censor everything.

So do you think we should make a deciding body, perhaps an organ of the UN charged with finding and maintaining a balance with copyright and free speech?

DNS blocking can be easily circumvented, the SOPA bill is pretty much useless at what it sets out to do, as pirates will easily get around its only provision. The problem is that it's way too broad:


By posting that link, under SOPA it would be possible to prosecute the owners of the escapist, and give them a considerable amount of jailtime.

(1) They didn't post the link.
(2) It's a short cover of a song that should fall under fair use.
(3) The US government could take down the escapist permanently, just for one link.

If you're still sticking to your guns, 0/10.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

By posting that link, under SOPA it would be possible to prosecute the owners of the escapist, and give them a considerable amount of jailtime.

(1) They didn't post the link.
(2) It's a short cover of a song that should fall under fair use.
(3) The US government could take down the escapist permanently, just for one link.

If you're still sticking to your guns, 0/10.

I'm not saying that I support SOPA/PIPA; In fact I am against them both for curtailing free speech with little hope of stopping piracy. But I AM saying that whether or not we approve, one way or another the corporations will restrict free speech unless we figure out a law that offers them reasonable protection from piracy.

The internet has laws. The laws are also enforced.

I dont see what the hell you are on about.

The thing is, the laws as they are do not work, as is evidenced by the rampant and easy piracy of media. This leads to companies trying to protect their property by creating increasingly draconian measures to protect them. I'm not an expert in copyright law or other laws that govern media and free speech, so I want to know if anyone out there knows a better way to structure the laws of the internet rather than the "our way or no way" version proposed in SOPA and PIPA.

Thats really not as easy as it sounds.

Pirates will find a way, they will always find a way. They would find a way around SOPA, they find ways round DRM, they will find a way around anything you throw at them, short of all ISP providers closing down.

It's a 'thin blue line' sort of situation; we make laws about what should or shouldn't be allowed, criminals try to find ways to perform illegal acts, and the police work to make each new way unviable. I want to know if there is some way to keep it to a minimum; for instance, if I recall the furor over IP addresses running out a few months back, the internet needs some restructuring; is there perhaps some way we could build safeguards into the system?

 

[Kopikatsu]

DMCA is abused by corporations all the time already. Just look at youtube. Videos that are clearly fair use are pulled down from there all the time for no good reason. These corporations are very rarely, if ever punished for their platant abuse of power.

And you want to give corporations more laws to abuse. No thanks.

Section 103 of SOPA says that anyone who abuses the system (IE brings down a site/video/whatever wrongly) will be thrown in jail on account of perjury and the site that got taken down will be paid restitution. Additionally, SOPA doesn't override fair use. SOPA only affects sites that are illegally making money off copyrighted material. Posting a youtube video or saying 'STAR WARS' in a forum isn't going to get you thrown in jail.

Check it yourself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112dvV5Hv:e29080:

I swear that people haven't actually read the bill and are just regurgitating what they hear from other people. FACT CHECKING IS IMPORTANT GUYS.

I also noticed how people raging on SOPA never bother to cite the bill. Well, there is the link to it. Read the bill and cite whatever you feel is worth citing.

 

[Bad Jim]

is there perhaps some way we could build safeguards into the system?

There is no technological solution that would work without locking down the internet and crippling it. It's a legal issue.

The whole 'links' issue is what pirates have been hiding behind since Napster. But, as with a terrorist using human shields, blasting straight through the human shields with grenades isn't the best answer. Similarly, while there is merit in blocking/prosecuting many torrent sites, the law must be limited to those responsible for links to infringing content.

Also, ridiculous fines for illegal downloading must go. As a strategy, prosecuting illegal downloads only works if you prosecute a good fraction of the pirates. Otherwise pirates will just assume it won't happen to them. It's politically impossible to throw $100K+ fines at the majority of pirates because they all vote and so do their loved ones. Piracy fines should be like speeding fines, modestly sized and handed out regularly.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

why do people insist that the Internet should be a lawless place, where pirates can steal freely with the 'promise' that if they like some content, they'll go back and pay for it later, but where government-sponsored (SOPA and PIPA) or company-sponsored (DRM) restrictions are the worst possible creations?

We have those laws in place already. What SOPA and PIPA ask is for the legal system to be abandoned entirely so the corporations don't 'waste' money and time going to court. This is why they're unacceptable, not because we want to pirate everything.

The legislation we have now may not be as effective as some people would like, but it shouldn't be as destructive and demanding as SOPA and PIPA.

 

[seraphy]

Section 103 of SOPA says that anyone who abuses the system (IE brings down a site/video/whatever wrongly) will be thrown in jail on account of perjury and the site that got taken down will be paid restitution. Additionally, SOPA doesn't override fair use. SOPA only affects sites that are illegally making money off copyrighted material. Posting a youtube video or saying 'STAR WARS' in a forum isn't going to get you thrown in jail.

Check it yourself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112dvV5Hv:e29080:

I swear that people haven't actually read the bill and are just regurgitating what they hear from other people. FACT CHECKING IS IMPORTANT GUYS.

I also noticed how people raging on SOPA never bother to cite the bill. Well, there is the link to it. Read the bill and cite whatever you feel is worth citing.

Yes yes, there are supposed to be punishment for abusing DMCA as well. Funny how that never happens though.

Don't be naive.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Um, you do of course realize there are laws on the internet, right? The thing is people don't like going through that pesky 'do process' thing that apparently doesn't work... this whole SOPA fiasco has basically made America confirm we have no faith in our own legal system. What you want is a stricter internet, which isn't a good idea. Pirates do get letters from their ISPs, the biggest offenders do end up in court, and pedophiles do get tracked and caught. Turning the net into a police state isn't going to change much of that, it's mostly just going to effect everyone else negatively... hence why EVERYONE doesn't want these bills to pass.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Sure the internet needs laws, however this one is not a very good one and thus should be rejected. Other laws can be analyzed and judged as they come.

 

[Snotnarok]

There are laws for this stuff, it's simply companies that make millions on even failure movies/games want to make more money because they feel that any piracy number is a reasonable basis for saying we lost profit.

So if [game] was pirated 4.2 million times, they lost 4.2 million sales. How does that make sense? There's many things that could have factored into that, like people trying the game and there's no demo, or game isn't available where they are, or they had to download it a second or third time because the first download didn't work, etc etc.

Yes piracy sucks but saying we lost x amount because x amount of downloads happened is a shitty reason to give them the right to police the internet.

This bill would smash any little guy trying to make just a living while these corporate heads thumb through a magazine for their next yacht. This bill violates EVERY right we have in this country and anyone ANYONE supporting this is a brainwashed goon backing billion dollar corporations over the little guys: artists, musicians, writers, video creators, creative minds, small businesses, blogs.

I'm really not sorry these guys have piracy problems because they already make billions of dollars and they're actively attacking OUR rights because of the few that are doing bad. (I in no way condone piracy I'm merely making a point that I don't care what their problem is when their solution is to come out with a bill that attacks everyone's rights. )

There's a better way and they should be (strangled) ashamed for lobbying this anti-rights bullshit against us.